FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2516849542> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2516849542 endingPage "69" @default.
• W2516849542 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2516849542 abstract "The objective of this Campbell Systematic Review was to assess the relative effects of custodial sanctions (imprisonment) and non‐custodial (“alternative” or “community”) sanctions on re‐offending. By “custodial” we understand any sanction where offenders are deprived of freedom of movement, i.e. placed in a closed residential setting not their home, no matter whether they are allowed to leave these premises during the day or during weekends. Thus, boot camps would be considered “custodial” settings according to the definition adopted here. By “noncustodial”, we mean any form of sanction that does not involve any deprivation of liberty, such as community work, electronic monitoring, financial or suspended custodial sanctions. Thus, the category of non‐custodial sanctions includes a great variety of punishments that have in common to leave the offender in the community rather than putting him into confinement. Studies written in any language and prepared between 1961 and 2002 were considered for inclusion. Although a vast majority of the 23 eligible studies show noncustodial sanctions to be more beneficial in terms of re‐offending than custodial sanctions, no significant difference is found in the meta‐analysis based on four controlled and one natural experiments. The review identified several shortcomings of studies on this subject. 2. Abstract 2.1 Reviewers Martin Killias, Patrice Villettaz, and Isabel Zoder, Institute of Criminology and Criminal Law, Ecole des Sciences Criminelles, University of Lausanne, CH‐1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E‐mail: martin.killias@unil.ch , patrice.villettaz@unil.ch , Phone: (0041‐21) 692 46 40, Fax (0041‐21) 692 46 05. 2.2 Background Throughout the Western World, community‐based sanctions have become a popular and widely used alternative to custodial sentences. There have been many comparisons of rates of reconviction among former prisoners and those who have served any kind of community sanction. So far, the comparative effects on re‐offending of custodial and non‐custodial sanctions are unresolved, due to many uncontrolled variables. 2.3 Objective The objective is to assess the relative effects of custodial sanctions (imprisonment) and non‐custodial (“alternative” or “community”) sanctions on re‐offending. By “custodial” we understand any sanction where offenders are deprived of freedom of movement, i.e. placed in a closed residential setting not their home, no matter whether they are allowed to leave these premises during the day or during weekends. Thus, boot camps would be considered “custodial” settings according to the definition adopted here. By “noncustodial”, we mean any form of sanction that does not involve any deprivation of liberty, such as community work, electronic monitoring, financial or suspended custodial sanctions. Thus, the category of non‐custodial sanctions includes a great variety of punishments that have in common to leave the offender in the community rather than putting him into confinement. 2.4 Search strategy Relevant published and unpublished studies which meet the eligibility criteria have been identified through multiple sources, including abstracts, bibliographies, and contacts with experts in several countries. 2.5 Eligibility criteria Randomized or natural experiments have been considered without exception. Quasi‐experimental studies, i.e. comparisons between former prison inmates and those who served community sanctions, have been included, provided that variables in addition to those found routinely in registers (age, sex and prior record) have been controlled for (such as attitudes, personal or employment history etc.); in the course of the review, this criterion has been relaxed in the sense that studies were considered if more than three potentially relevant independent variables have been controlled for. Studies written in any language and prepared between 1961 and 2002 have been considered for inclusion. 2.6 Data collection and analysis A coding protocol has been prepared, following the guidelines of the Campbell Collaboration. 2.7 Main results Although a vast majority of the selected studies (see Table 2, page 29) show noncustodial sanctions to be more beneficial in terms of re‐offending than custodial sanctions, no significant difference is found in the meta‐analysis based on four controlled and one natural experiments. 2.8 Reviewers’ conclusions The review has allowed to identify several shortcomings of studies on this subject: Controlled experiments are still rare exceptions, although obstacles to randomisation are far less absolute than often claimed. Follow‐up periods rarely extend beyond two years. Even in cases of controlled trials where later follow‐up studies might be feasible, periods considered never extended to significant parts of subjects’ biographies. Despite alternative (and presumably more valid) measures of re‐offending (such as self‐reports), most studies do not include measures of re‐offending beyond re‐arrest or re‐conviction. In most studies, only the occurrence (prevalence) of re‐arrest or re‐conviction is considered, but not the frequency (incidence) of new offences. Some studies have shown, however, that most offenders reduce offending rates after any type of intervention. Thus, the relevant question may be to what extent they improve differently by type of sanction. Therefore, it is urgent to look in future studies at rates of improvement (or reductions in offending) rather than merely at “recidivism” as such. Rehabilitation in other relevant areas, such as health, employment, family and social networks, is rarely considered, despite century‐old claims that short custodial sentences are damaging with respect to social integration in these other areas. No study has addressed the possibility of placebo (or Hawthorn) effects. Even in controlled trials, it is not clear to what extent outcomes that favoured “alternative” sanctions were due to the fact that subjects assigned to noncustodial sanctions may have felt being treated more fairly, rather than to specific effects of “alternative” sanctions as such. Given recent research on neurobiological effects of feelings of fairness (Fehr and Rockenbach, 2003), such a possibility should be envisaged with more attention in future research. 2.9 Sources of support This review has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (n° 101411‐101960). Financial support by the Swiss National Science Foundation has not affected the independence of reviewers." @default.
• W2516849542 created "2016-09-16" @default.
• W2516849542 creator A5006954714 @default.
• W2516849542 creator A5007941509 @default.
• W2516849542 creator A5042693074 @default.
• W2516849542 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2516849542 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2516849542 title "The Effects of Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Sentences on Re-Offending: A Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge" @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1537231235 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1567934960 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W156878927 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W157606769 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1966135575 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1967851190 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1969802385 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1977240771 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1981671306 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1990106383 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1993215331 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1995050406 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1995961606 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1999016014 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1999418007 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W1999687707 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2001287498 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2004034578 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2004282472 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2004812787 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2005741758 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2005885344 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2006268742 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2008510857 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2008929500 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2015091621 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2016171263 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2022897587 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2022959480 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2023082891 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2024169135 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2026011301 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2030424537 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2031301758 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2032180649 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2033173620 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2037549418 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2038592908 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2041190127 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2041585771 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2043710839 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2044359197 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2047115005 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2047740669 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2047913323 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2050384842 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2052390894 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2053281514 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2056645636 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2058481893 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2072977556 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2073268578 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2074137198 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2084679060 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2084721686 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2085388842 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2095757886 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2098004801 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2099514873 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2099696660 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2103820024 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2104574502 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2105332618 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2108368856 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2110073933 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2110312996 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2114088712 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2115769794 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2118531390 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2120003582 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2121698101 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2122497169 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2124562290 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2125856822 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2126316852 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2127020108 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2131948166 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2138485834 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2139846759 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2140496119 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2144216666 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2145596612 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2146320994 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2151145909 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2159153514 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2160538921 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2160851772 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2165580407 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2169315860 @default.
• W2516849542 cites W2171517231 @default.

• next